We have had to disqualify the former 1st and 3rd place images in "Abstract in Green" for going too far in obliterating old features and introducing new ones. We have been pretty relaxed lately on the use of effects filters because they have generally been applied TO a clearly-intact original image without obliterating it. In both of these cases, the effects have gone so far as to essentially blow away the original image and replace it with something entirely "created" in Photoshop. We'd be happy to show the originals so people can see what we're talking about, but we need permission from the photographers to do so.

I didn't want to complain, but it was certainly something that struck me as being way over the line. Sorry to the DQ'd persons, and congrats to the newly minted ribbon winners and HM's, as well as a thank you to SC for making a tough, but fair, call.

And now, UNFORTUNATELY, I have yet *another* DQ to announce in the "Abstract in Green" challenge: the former 2nd-place image, which became (briefly) the 1st-place image, has been DQ'd for inability to provide a valid original. The photographer is quite new to DPC, and made the mistake of saving his edits directly onto his JPG original; since he's been unable to recover a valid original from his memory card (as far as we know, and he's had some time) we have to DQ this image as well.

I believe this is the first time in DPC history that all 3 ribbons in a challenge have fallen by the wayside, and I certainly hope it's the last.

Congratulations to our new ribbon-winner and HM images.

And NOW everyone knows why we were suddenly requesting additional proof images all the way down to near the bottom of the top-10 :-( We wanted to be sure we had what we needed for a timely turnover if any of THOSE turned out to be unacceptable...

As you can see, Geroges's experimentation with the ATX Redfield filter led him way, way down a path to the point where the original can no longer be visualized from seeing the edited version. It's a lovely image, but it needs to be in an expert editing challenge. He rotated the source image 180 degrees, BTW, if you're trying to line up highlights :-)

funny thing, i had an outtakein the processing that did preserve the "hexagonal" patterning on the leaves, but i wanted to push it more to make it more abstract and emphasize the undulating leaf edges... so i pushed too far!

From our perspective, the extreme processing created a whole structural system, so to speak, that doesn't come close to existing in the original image. In a very similar way to what happened with Georges's image, the effects filter, iColorama in this case, has been pushed so far that the only part of this entry that actually connects it to the source image is the outline of the leaves themselves; all that detailed vein-type structure is entirely artificial, and even the edges are so exaggerated as to move into a different dimension.

For us, both of these images have become more graphic art than "photography", as if an artist had used the original to inspire a painting on canvas, sort of. They are both striking images, but they don't fit under the advanced ruleset.

Note that the alterations in these images are categorically different from some of the more aggressively-processed images that HAVE been validated: these other images have, in effect, applied effects on TOP of recognizable source images to produce painterly effects without introducing what we might call "structural" changes. It's hard for me to describe what I'm talking about but hopefully the examples speak more clearly.

For reference, look at this image of Margaret Netherwood's that was much closer to being right ON the line that these two "green" images crossed way over:

Here we had a split decision in SC, leaning towards validation (the greens were both unanimous DQs). In the end, we all agreed to pass this image because the specific challenge ("Photograph Becomes a Painting") actually seemed to be ENCOURAGING people to push the boundaries like this. It's not, however, a good example for what would always be legal because there were some strong voices against it. Be that as it may, my point here is that none of these changes are "structural" in nature: the pier is still the pier, the fisherman is still the fisherman, and so forth; there's just an expressionistic pastiche of textures/brushstrokes applied over the base image but not obscuring it. IMO this is a legal edit in Advanced Editing, but as I said it's so heavily done it's very close to the line.

Hopefully this discussion will make a little clearer where the "line" actually IS, although it's (unavoidably) perhaps more of a "zone" than a "line"...

Let me say that were I still on SC I would have voted with the majority in both cases... and I was probably one of the more liberal SC members. In both cases the detail present in the submissions bears no relation to the detail in the originals. In essence, they really are photoshop creations.

I understand why they were DQd but eh... I still don't understand why we allow certain types of post work and frown upon others.

The way I look at it; I can change whatever I like in an image, as long as it is clear that they are edits. If my edits begin to look like something that might have been in the original image, but it was not in the original image, then I am creating new elements through editing.

I can add blur and dodge to a landscape all I want, until it begins to look like finger of fog that I am creating from nothing. Once the viewer sees it as fog, I have gone too far.

I would like to thank the photographers who prompted this helpful discussion by giving their consent to use their original images. They suffered DQd submissions, but, by their gracious consent, have provide invaluable material for demonstrating how the rules are applied. Photographers: I'm sorry for your DQs, but I am appreciative for the assistance you have provided for all of us.

The ribbons were valuable to you; the lesson has been valuable for ALL of us. Thank you.